Unless something quite unexpected happens the Labour Party will be lucky to win a quarter of the vote at the next election—about half its vote in 1951. Neither the polls nor the recent by-elections suggest that it will be so lucky under Jeremy Corbyn, imposing an urgent conflict of loyalties on MPs and anybody else concerned to avoid the party’s outright ruin. Back in 1951 by contrast, despite falling just short of Winston Churchill’s Conservatives on Commons seats, Labour won more votes—almost 49 per cent of the total; the highest percentage it has ever won.

What was it about 1951 Britain that was so favourable to the Labour Party? There was its social structure. About 70 per cent of the male workforce were manual workers. Britain had, relatively, the largest industrial workforce in the world. Its traditional heavy industries had been given a new lease of life by the Second World War—nearly two million people, for instance, still worked in the mines and were ineradicably Labour in their loyalties—while the newer industries, aircraft, automobiles, light domestic industry were still flourishing, not yet undone by international competition. Britain was a country that made things.

The institutions and culture of industry still favoured Labour too. The trade unions, if not universally loved, were powerful and had a recognised standing in society. This culture, and memories of the Second World War, encouraged the development of a…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days. But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Email

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

Comments

Alyson

March 10, 2017 at 17:26

A split would not help Labour. The problem as I see it is that the Party needs to open up its lines of communication, inside and outside of the Executive and the unions, to enter the 21st century, to work with social media, and to develop policy which is contributed to by experts, interest groups, and members. Its archaic systems, its exclusion zones, its opposional defiant disorder, class warfare, and outsider mentality, need to be addressed with a lot of local conferences, brainstorming for better ways to create and communicate essential Policy, delegating teams to work on aspects of a whole. And if Mr Corbyn is not the bureaucrat, then let him delegate to someone who is. His economist-backed Corbynomics captured the public interest. But sadly he is now the one who is left behind and he has a lot of catching up to do

Alyson

March 11, 2017 at 09:31

My suggestion would be to swap Tom Watson for Ken Livingston. Ken has the experience of London Mayor to evidence his skills with working with a diverse range of groups and institutions, and getting things done, while Tom Watson's proximity to Corbyn appears to be making Corbyn ill. (And before anyone mentions Zionist sting, I suggest they watch the Al Jazeera documentary about the million pound investment by the Israeli embassy in Labour's Friends of Israel. If it was any other country concerns would be raised)

Geoff Beacon

March 11, 2017 at 10:50

I've been a Labour Party member since 1964. Never liked "the Party" much but have liked many fellow members. I still pay my dues because the alternatives areworse.
A split. An excellent plan then both sides won't be dogged by the sins of the past. e.g.
Blair's academy schools
Browns PFI's
Milliband's failure to oppose Universal Credit that is impoverishing section of the poor.
(LP Luminary: " They knew. As useful as chocolate teapots")
Limp action on climate change. (Blair sacked Michael Meacher remember.)
BUT their (our?) dreadful record is still the best.
A split with an electoral pact is worth some work. Organisation? Algorithms?
Could this bring about more open discussions without having to defend the indefensible?
I'm not sure but there is nothing much to loose.

GwydionM

March 11, 2017 at 11:51

As a Corbyn supporter, I would be overjoyed if they did just that.
If they lack the guts to fight against the odds for what they believe to be right, they have no business being MPs.

Dr Caffeine

March 11, 2017 at 12:09

Really the Tories should split as well as Labour. For *both* parties the old 'broad church' concensus is a broken model. But it is all too clear that without some form of PR (and not the dismal LibDem STV version, of course) such party splits are electoral suicide. But the outcomes of General Elections are now near to arbitrary with First Past the Post since the 'major' parties sit on 30-35% of the vote and 'minor' parties 10-20%+. And we have low turnouts. The electorate *might* just wake up to this as 'undemocratic': it's still amazing that the four million UKIP voters with just one MP are as quiet as they are. Certainly it is a great political danger to ignore the democratic deficit tht FPTP delivers. So yes, a Labour split - combined with an electoral pact -could patch over the demise of the 'broad church' model. But PR would have to be a headline manifesto commitment. It could unlock a proper political realignement that even the power-at-all-costs Tories couldn't avoid.

Alan M.

March 11, 2017 at 13:21

Labour needs to split because at present it is unelectable. A separate party without Corbyn might stand more of a chance. The Tories are electable, have a parliamentary majority, and are likely to win even more seats in the next election. There may be differences within the party, but the institution itself, the Conservative Party is in good health. It does not need to split. The conditions of the two parties are quite different. There is no equivalence.

John Stevens

March 12, 2017 at 13:10

The key reason why Labour should split is that to keep the UK in the EU a more credible StopBrexit force is needed than merely the Lib Dems. Furthermore, because such a split would also precipitate, after an interval, a split by the Conservative pro-Europeans currently cowed the Brexit grip on the Party, thereby creating a proper cross-party StopBrexit alliance capable of winning a General Election. The seats which voted most to Remain and the seats which voted most to Leave are both now represented by Labour MPs: an impossible position.

David West

March 16, 2017 at 17:09

An interesting article which is honest in some places and less truthful in others:
''Britain has a shortage of labour, skilled and unskilled, particularly in the now huge service sector, that can only be filled by importing workers.''
There is no such shortage AT ALL. There is huge unemployment and under-employment. Capital has always sought to have surplus labour not just to keep wages down but for reasons of power - people don't kick up a fuss in the workplace if they know they can be easily replaced. It is to Labour's shame that they ignored this.
''not because migrants have taken their jobs, or live off welfare, or exploit the NHS—there is no truth in any of those charges''
Of course migrants take jobs that British people can do. That's the whole point of the exercise - to maintain structural unemployment. And yes, the welfare state is MASSIVELY abused, especially by Muslims. And obviously the NHS is abused as well, either in the form of fraud over prescriptions etc or over things like having children here and then leaving or clearing up the mess after FGM.
''It is also apparent in those parts of rural Britain, such as Lincolnshire, that are dependent on seasonal agricultural labour''
So who used to do it before the migrants did it?
''The Austrian economist-sociologist, Joseph Schumpeter, wrote a famous essay on social classes “in an ethnically homogenous environment”—an early recognition that conflicting ethnicities could frustrate class politics.''
Good honest point. Which is why the capitalist class has sought ever more immigration.
''Among the New Labour leadership—particularly Blair himself—there was sympathy for the “rational” argument that migration met the real needs of the labour market.''
No. Not at all. Blair did what the money told him to do. Capital wanted a huge influx of labour to keep wages low and maintain structural unemployment. I strongly suspect they also believe open borders can break the welfare states of Europe. Then there are the more malicious intentions around culture and the building of technocratic states. I am more than happy to be derided as a conspiracy theorist on this one. Simply follow the logic or investigate the agenda of organisations like the Runnymede Trust.
''The trouble is that Britain has become an immigrant nation by stealth. ''
No. The native population still accounts for the bulk of the population. Immigrants have joined us not supplanted us. At least not yet. What you're correct about is that Labour DID do it by stealth. It DIDN'T happen by accident, that's why they, the EHRC and the BBC put huge pressure on the Tories to not saying anything about it in the early 00s. That's why the only reason opposition came from the BNP - because everyone else was too scared to say anything, even though they knew the working class was unhappy from the early 00s. It was a deliberate move containing different agendas: those of the capitalist class, those of the race relations industry, those of Islamists, those of idiot believers in demographic politics - that the resultant changes would break 'Tory England'.
''rather there has been an atmosphere of low-level xenophobia, particularly in those parts of the country where there are not, paradoxically, many immigrants.''
Wrong again. If you look at the research from people like Eric Kauffman you find that opposition to immigration is highest when the rate of change is highest. Hence why people like to bash the good people of Lincolnshire and then say 'put the migrants are needed to pick the crops'. What happens in areas of high immigration is this: those who can't tolerate it, leave. A not insignificant number of people remain but absolutely do not like it. A class of Briton exists which is positively orientalist and loves it. These people vote Green or Labour.

David Welsh

March 16, 2017 at 21:23

I agree that Labour's decline is of long standing and that this decline does not have one cause but many. Jeremy Corbyn's election and performance as Leader of the party is thus best seen as a symptom of that decline rather than its cause. It now seems reasonably clear, however, that he does not inspire confidence in enough people and so his continuing presence is not helping.
As Ross McKibbin says, the deep structural changes in British society and economy are indeed fundamental to explaining the erosion of Labour support. Equally important, I would suggest, is the deeply implausible account which Labour continues to give not only about its policy programme (concerning which Mr Corbyn likes to say he has so far 'not ruled anything out') but also about what Labour likes to call its 'fundamental values'. Labour needs to be much clearer about its understanding of such words in its vocabulary as liberty, equality, citizenship, justice, the rule of law and democracy. And, more important, it needs to be much clearer as to how it understands the relationships between these various value terms.
Its no good Mr Corbyn banging on about justice if he can't convince enough of us that he knows what the word means.

Alyson

March 21, 2017 at 10:34

Well... I had thought that Tom Watson's role as Deputy was possibly damaging to the unity of the Labour Party but now that we know he has taken half a million pounds from Max Mosely, the surely he has to go. Robert Peston clarified: 'You’ve taken half a million quid from Max Mosley. That’s too much, isn’t it? He’s bought your influence.'
Peston was referring to Mosley’s two donations to Watson’s office. As The Canary previously reported, Mosley (son of the notorious founder of the British Union of Fascists) is funding a government-approved press regulator – Impress. And his donations to Watson (whom the latter calls a “friend”) could raise eyebrows, as he is also Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
Watson told Peston that Mosley had “given a donation to the Labour Party” to help with research. But he later backtracked, saying:
'the donation was given to me.'

Alyson

May 9, 2017 at 17:39

Labour is now looking much more electable. The planned national investment bank, to build our trade and infrastructure economy, and a focus on addressing tax avoidance, fraud and environmental damage, have caught the public's hopes for a better future for their children. Not least is their moral high ground, in the face of the reliance on food banks by the most vulnerable in our society, the cruel use of sanctions to remove all forms of income for terminally ill people declared fit for work, who are unable to attend job centres, and the dismantling of the NHS which was Labour's finest achievement. Corbyn is a man of principle who cares about rule of law, including the ECHR which the country risks losing if the Conservatives get the opportunity to further remove social infrastructure. Labour needs to pull together and work for a better Britain. It is unfortunate that the media is so united against Labour that we need Vince Cable and John Major to tell us how important it is for the country to vote Labour in this upcoming election.

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information. Click here to learn more about these purposes and how we use your data. You will be able to opt-out of further contact on the next page and in all our communications.

This Month's Magazine

Timothy Garton Ash says Britain could pull back from the Brexit brink and lead EU reform from within. David Allen Green says that if we must leave, there is a better way to do it. Plus: a new exhibition punctures the clichés around Islamic art

Sponsored features

Prospect was originally founded by Editor David Goodhart and Publisher Derek Coombs, as a home for intelligent debate. The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities. The aim is to tackle the big challenges confronting society, through rigorous thinking and fine writing.

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’s website for FREE in the next 30 days.. PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.